cultural resources – Page 72

EPA proposes to conclude definitively that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire reservations. This reinterpretation would eliminate the need for applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate under the Act, thus allowing tribes to implement the congressional delegation of authority unhindered by requirements not specified in the statute. The reinterpretation would also bring EPA’s treatment of tribes under the Clean Water Act in line with EPA’s treatment of tribes under the Clean Air Act, which has similar statutory language addressing tribal regulation of Indian reservation areas.

Comments must be submitted by October 6, 2015.

Individual Native Hawaiian Complaint against Hawaii re: Telescope Plans on Mauna Kea

August 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Amsterdam v. State of Hawai’i (D. Haw.):

1 Complaint

Trapp v. Department of Correction Amicus Brief

August 25, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Trapp Amicus – Final

NAPGRA Criminal Prosecution — Acquiring Indian Remains

August 18, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in United States v. Beatty (S.D. Ohio):

1 Information

3 Elements of the Plea Agreement

10 Consent to Plead Guilty

13 Magistrate Report

Federal Misdemeanor Information Alleging Impersonating an Indian Artist

July 23, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the paper in United States v. Whetstone (W.D. Mo.):

1 Information

Ninth Circuit Decides Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management re: Medicine Lake Highlands

July 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt from the court’s syllabus:

The panel reversed the district court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings in an action brought by environmental organizations challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s continuation of 26 geothermal leases in northeastern California’s Medicine Lake Highlands.

The panel held that the district court incorrectly treated the environmental organizations’ claims as arising under only § 1005(a) of the Geothermal Steam Act. BLM’s 1998 decision to continue the 26 unproven leases in the Glass Mountain Unit under § 1005(a) was issued simultaneously with its decision to reverse and vacate its earlier decision to extend those leases on a lease-by-lease basis under § 1005(g). The panel held, thus, that the environmental organizations’ challenge to BLM’s decisions issued on May 18, 1998 implicated both § 1005(a) and § 1005(g).

Because BLM must conduct environmental, historical, and cultural review under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act before granting lease extensions under § 1005(g), the panel held that the environmental organizations’ claim fell within § 1005(g)’s zone-of-interests, and the organizations had
stated a claim under § 1005(g).

The panel declined the environmental organizations’ invitation to rule on the merits of its Geothermal Steam Act claims, and remanded for further proceedings.

Briefs:

Pit River Opening Brief

BLM Answer Brief

Pit River Reply